header-logo header-logo

EU—Jurisdiction—Civil & commercial matters

07 February 2014
Issue: 7593 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Schmid v Hertel C-328/12 [2014] All ER (D) 221 (Jan)

Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber), 16 Jan 2014

Under Art 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 (on insolvency proceedings) (the Regulation), courts of the member state within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency brought against a person whose place of residence is not within the territory of a member state.

The applicant was the liquidator of the debtor’s assets, appointed in insolvency proceedings in Germany in May 2007. The respondent resided in Switzerland. The applicant brought an action against the respondent before the German courts seeking to have a transaction set aside and to recover a sum of money plus interest as part of the debtor’s estate. The action was dismissed as inadmissible at first instance and on appeal on the ground that the German courts lacked international jurisdiction. The applicant appealed to the German Federal Court of Justice

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll